Legal Opinion

In Re Mh-2008-000867

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided August 5, 2010No. CV-09-0297-PRPublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HURWITZ, Vice Chief Justice.

¶ 1 The issue in this ease is whether the superior court erred by allowing an evaluating physician to testify telephonically in a mental health commitment proceeding. Because the treatment order has expired, this case is arguably moot. We nonetheless accepted review because the issue presented is of statewide importance and capable of evading review. See In re Commitment of Alleged Mentally Disordered Person, 181 Ariz. 290, 292, 889 P.2d 1088, 1090 (1995). We have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Goldberg v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Hamdi v. RumsfeldSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  4. Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  5. Wilkinson v. AustinSupreme Court of the United States · 2005

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Ryan v. San Francisco Peaks Trucking Co.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2011
  2. In Re Mh2010-002637Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2011
  3. In Re Mh2015-003266Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2016
  4. Grand Holdings v. PeoriaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2020
  5. In Re Mh 2014-003019Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2015

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API